Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[Moderator]

And P.S. I did not say that throwing money at programs was the answer to the problems. That was your assumption.

[exzel]

I may be incorrect, but it sounds like you are referring to the claim that the Obama administration was removing the work requirement from welfare benefits. That claim is not correct in spite of the spin many GOP politicians have tried to put on it earning them the Pants On Fire rating for their distortion of the facts. From PolitiFact:

The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.

And from that same piece:

Since 1996, welfare has been administered through block grants to states. The grant program, called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, limits how long families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually go to work. It also includes stringent reporting requirements for states to show they are successfully moving people into the workforce.

A memo from George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states "of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority ... to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

What does that mean?

"If you can do a better job connecting people to work, we would consider waiving certain parts of the performance measures and use alternate measures," is how Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, translated the memo’s point. (The center supports the plan.)

You are correct Ms. Mod in that I was referring to a President Obama executive order, as it pertains to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, but I think you read too much into what I wrote. I wrote “now taken steps to erode many of those requirements.” I didn’t say he “was removing the work requirement from welfare benefits.”

I don’t believe “eroding” should garner a “Pants On Fire” rating.

And according to Lawrence Mead, one of the experts whose research paved the way for the "workfare" law passed in 1996: “If the revision wouldn't single-handedly cripple the work requirement, it "has opened the door to changes in welfare reform that could destroy it from within." Eroding might be quite generous.

One has to ask, If the Obama administration believes in work requirements, why then write something so broad in the language that it encourages states to lift them all if they choose?

Would you not agree that now the federal government will now accept "personal journaling," "smoking cessation," "weight loss promotion" and "helping a friend or relative with household tasks and errands" as acceptable substitutions for the work requirements by states?

SIGN ME UP BABY!

Call me crazy but I would consider that eroding the work requirement as laid out in 1996 bill. I believe Americans have little objecting to government aid for those unable to help themselves… such as children, the elderly and the disabled. But I believe most resent subsidizing able-bodied adults, without expecting something in return. The old work requirement respects the sacrifices of those of us who pay the taxes to fund this welfare program. The new requirements don’t.

[Moderator]

I don't want to get too much off topic here because its primary focus is on gun control issues not the underlying factors, but do feel a response to your comments is necessary. The changes did not eliminate work requirements, nor was it an across-the-board change. It put it back on the states*, if they could prove they had alternative programs that would continue moving welfare recipients toward employment as I'd already quoted in my previous post:

the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states "of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority ... to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."


*and BTW aren't many conservative (in particular) politicians constantly hammering at giving the states rights to make decisions locally about programs rather than on the federal level. Here's a case where the feds are trying to accommodate local initiatives and are still being blasted for it.

For the record, I absolutely agree that whenever possible and there is no physical/mental reason preventing someone from employment, that should be the ultimate goal. There needs to be welfare reform that encourages that without penalizing recipients when they attempt to do so to the point that they are in worse shape by getting off welfare than remaining on it. Being gainfully employed and having a good work ethic benefits everyone.

[Dana Jean]

My sister is a third grade teacher. I GUARANTEE you, she should not have a gun, even if she was trained. She is the most uncoordinated person I have ever met. Just picturing my sister armed, gripping a gun with the two-handed grip and shooting someone makes me laugh. And I'm not making light of this situation, just my sister. No joe or jane on the street needs any automatic weapon, ever. I don't like handguns either. Hunting rifles/shotguns -- I'll give you those but I still don't like them.

And yes, anything can be a weapon in the hands of the wrong person. People do kill people and guns make that so much easier.

When our forefathers were giving us the right to bear arms, they were talking about muskets. Fire once, stop, put powder in it, drop a ball in, tamp it down and fire again. I will allow these because every single mass shooting that has happened, if they had to go through all of that to keep reloading, they would have been taken down and beat into a bloody pulp before they got to tamp once. So, for those of you who scream you have a right to bear arms, you have the right to bear a musket. Because that's what our forefathers said and everyone loves throwing that around. That's what they were talking about. So let it be written, so let it be done.

I just want to say this. I was just as horrified by the events in Newtown, CN. I still believe that if some of those teachers and esp. the principal had been armed, most of those little ones could have been saved. If an intruder came to my door, and we live on a country road, I would protect myself and my family with a firearm of choice, aim first, ask questions later.

[hossenpepper]

One has to ask, If the Obama administration believes in work requirements, why then write something so broad in the language that it encourages states to lift them all if they choose?

Ummm... You realize you contradicted pretty much every right wing stance you have ever made here on SKMB? Now you're mad because Obama isn't mandating enough at the federal level?

What a card you are!

[Todash]

*and BTW aren't many conservative (in particular) politicians constantly hammering at giving the states rights to make decisions locally about programs rather than on the federal level. Here's a case where the feds are trying to accommodate local initiatives and are still being blasted for it.

I believe the appropriate phrase is "can't win for losing."

This is clearly a win for states' rights. And yet, I have not heard any conservative say one good thing about it. If Romney had been elected and had done the same thing, Republicans everywhere would be giving him a standing ovation. WE THE PEOPLE, as a whole, do not have one single millimeter of wiggle room to complain about the bipartisanship of government entities.

And now, I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion-that's-heading-nowhere.

[guido tkp]

"..i'm a life-long member of the NRA..." (w/a huge wink and a smile...)
most people don't know this, but, when he was christened...the gnt had a carbine in one hand and an NRA card in the other....when the doctor slapped his bottom, he slapped an .45 on his hips, too...his first pampies where camo....his crib toys included a carousel with lions, tigers and bears...and a rifle w/a laser scope...his kindegarten class was at Charlton Heston Elementary...his first word wasn't 'mama' but mauser...he loved chuck conners until he found about his ulterior motives, and realized he had the wrong chuck...his first halloween he was wyatt earp...he didn't have a tricycle...but a tank w/ a missile launcher that threw lawn darts...when santa told him he shouldn't have a .22 rifle 'cause he'd shoot his eye out, the gnt smiled and said: 'it won't be my eye, sucka !'

sorry, gntlgnt...too much saki, i guess...

loved your post tery...

[Todash]

And yes, anything can be a weapon in the hands of the wrong person. People do kill people and guns make that so much easier.

TESTIFY! This argument--guns don't kill people; people kill people; anything can be used as a weapon--is completely invalidated by the fact that the people using it are using it to argue for the wide availability of guns. Please. PLEASE. Don't insult my intelligence. There may be excellent arguments for widespread gun ownership, but this isn't one of them.

Because if anything can be used as an effective weapon, then by all means, defend your home with a shop vac.

You cannot reasonably argue that you have a right to defend yourself and that guns are the way to do it and at the same time argue that there's no point in further restricting gun ownership since anything can be used as a weapon. It is an illogical, nonsensical argument.

[exzel]

And now, I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion-that's-heading-nowhere.

Hey, it’s a good story! It’s got a plot, story arc, sidebars, background, characters, adversaries, rising action and many situations. We will just have to wait on the climax/ending, and to find out who the heroes are, and who wins and loses. But the falling action and denouement could get quite interesting.

[exzel]

Ummm... You realize you contradicted pretty much every right wing stance you have ever made here on SKMB? Now you're mad because Obama isn't mandating enough at the federal level?

What a card you are!

Not quite. If the states use their own funds to fund their own welfare, then have at it and so as you wish, I say. Free cheese for all! But not so with federal funds.

Perhaps I’m not a pure Conservative, just mainly Conservative. Do people who consider themselves Liberals, believe in everything Liberal?